Talk:Homicide in English law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Homicide in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
September 6, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Law (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homicide in English law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll break my 'no law stuff on Wikipedia' rule and review. I'll read through and pop some comments up shortly... Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

None found.

Both working fine.

Image check
This one is easy enough as there are no images to check (and therefore no issues).

Initial comments

  • "Instead, in Vo v France they ruled that most definitions were within the margin of appreciation set aside to national law". Who is they' (presumably the ECHR)? Might be worth adding that to the sentence. Additionally, a case citation would perhaps be useful.
  • "There is no legislation that defines when death as occurred." Should this read has occurred?
  • Suggest blue-linking causation; perhaps here?
  • "However, if it is difficult to imagine circumstances were a jury would find virtual certainty but not convict, which would support this complicating factor." Typographical error; 'were' instead of 'where'.
  • The Woolin test for intent is referred to ordinarily by academics and practitioners as 'oblique intent'. Suggest adding the term to that section.
  • "The former role of the Home Secretary in deciding the minimum time spent in jail was successfully challenged with reference to the ECHR, but the mandatory life sentence itself has been judged compatible." Suggest adding the case in which the role of the Home Secretary was deemed incompatible.
  • "The qualifying trigger may of two types, or a combination of both..." Possible missing word; 'trigger may be of two types'?
  • "The application of the second form, including the words "extremely grave character" and "justifiable sense of being seriously wronged"." Is this sentence complete?
  • "There is some sort of causal rink required between the defendant's condition and the his acts or omissions," Typographical error? Suggest removing 'the'?
  • "Involuntary manslaughter involve the causing of the death of another person without intent..." Involves rather than involve?
  • "The required mental element (mens rea) for this crime is required..." Repetition of 'required'. Suggest removal or perhaps 'The requisite mental element...'?
  • "Similar dutie include those of a doctor of his patients, an electrician over a householder he has done work for" Typographical error; 'duties' rather than 'dutie'.
All taken care of, although some took a little tweaking to get right (my changes combined). I also corrected "Woolin" to "Woollin" (forever getting that wrong). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The GA criteria usually require that an article be illustrated before it can be promoted. I am conscious, however, that the criteria provides "Illustrated, if possible" and it may be that this article simply cannot be illustrated. I would, nonetheless, welcome the nominator's comments as to this issue.

This looks a lot more than in reality it probably is, and I suspect they will be addressed very quickly. I'll place the article on hold pending consideration of the above. Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Meetthefeebles, I've done the top two things and will address the others shortly. As far as images if you have any ideas I'm open ears. On Non-fatal offences against the person in English law I constructed a graph but that's based on the statistics of the crime in England and Wales, it wasn't really a good illustration of the concepts of English law. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
On the image issue, I am not at all sure. I did have a cursory look through the commons to see if perhaps there was an image of Tony Bland, figuring he was the most high profile person in the article, and found nothing. There is an image of Sir Edward Coke, which might be usable in the 'murder' section, there are some images of foetuses as well, but I am not really sure that either (especially the latter) would necessarily make the article better. It may be that this is just one of those articles that cannot realistically be illustrated? Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Having reviewed the Home Office data, I don't think that gives any useful graphs (homicide is mostly lumped together). A picture of Coke would be a definite option; whilst I don't personally think that sort of thing is useful other articles (e.g. Pepper v Hart) we do get portraits of quoted figures. I'm not opposed, merely apathetic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't suggest a graph because I know, from personal (and extremely annoying) experience, that the Home Office think it wise to simply publish homicide statistics instead of splitting the data into sub-categories. I do think, on reflection, that you should include the image of Coke; he is, after all, the man who effectively defined murder and is therefore an important figure in the context of the article. That might be as much as can be done. I have also reviewed the changes above and they are fine, save one in which you spelled 'killing' as 'kwilling'. I have amended what I presume to have been a typographical error. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Added the image of Coke as suggested. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Final GA review[edit]

Per WP:WIAGA Criteria

1. Well written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Reviewer comments

  • Prose is fluent and engaging. Some small errors have now been corrected. No issues with lists, WP:LEAD or any other obvious WP:MOS issues.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research

Reviewer comments

  • Can't see any WP:OR. Referencing is consistent throughout and use of good, academic (and thus reliable) source material. Bibliography is provided and is also consistent. Most sources offline so spot-checked only those references from Smith and Hogan (the only text of the three mainly used that I have) and no problems noted. Online sources checked and are fine.

3.Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Reviewer comments

  • There is perhaps an argument to be made that extra detail might assist in certain areas (Oblique intent has developed as a doctrine since DPP v Hyam over half a dozen cases and the shift from Provocation and the controversy surrounding cases such as R v Ahluwalia to Loss of Control are two examples) but I don't think they prevent the article being broad enough for WP:WIAGA as all key issues are mentioned as I would expect. I do think, however, that several issues might be expanded prior to any nomination at WP:FAC (though that is not necessary at WP:GAN, of course).

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Reviewer comments

  • No problems here

5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Reviewer comments

  • No evidence of edit wars.

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Reviewer comments

  • There is only one image, and that was a bit of a struggle to find. I agree with the nominator that this is one of those topics where it is very difficult to illustrate and, in keeping with the criteria wording (where possible), the lack of images is no reason not to award GA status

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A suitably broad, well-referenced, well-structured and pleasantly written article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

In light of the additions made, I am awarding GA status – well done! Please consider reviewing an article under the Good Article criteria. Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)